Well, for one it's his thread, and at the time at least, most of the argument was everyone else vs him. The point is that the discussion needs to move forward or it will end up closed.

What ever happened to letting topics just seep to the bottom of the list?

Dear Dapperdan:
Why count ownership of a thread by who starts it? Unless it is specifically about them, such as with a mod/map project. When a thread is an open discussion or debate, I feel ownership should belong to the community, as everyone has a hand in contributing to it, not just the person who happened to pose the first question.

As for the direction of this debate, you are welcome to address trolling, but the way you phrased the issue puts the decision on NerdyTerdy. Meanwhile, JaBok presented his own argument.

---

Dear NerdyTerdy:
Please don't misinterpret my above comments as labelling you as a troll. I don't consider you a troll. However, the result of consistently presenting extreme arguments and rebuttals in a debate without any support, even if it's due to you not having the time to properly develop the ideas, is an unintentional form of trolling.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 8 2008, 9:00 pm by Hercanic.

But the very definition of trolling is that you ARE being intentional about it.

Jabok did that after the fact. I'm not dumb and I wasn't going to close it if other people started debating the other side, as Jabok did. It wasn't intended to be a remark that was taken so seriously. In any case, I don't want to discuss anymore of this in the thread. I'd prefer if you pm'd this type of stuff but no big deal.

I assume I have to bump this because the other Eugenics topic was closed.

I agree that there are other traits that are "useful" than being intelligent, but I'm of the opinion that a lot of that is learned behavior, whereas I believe intelligence to be more innate.

Let me carry a warning to all those who may further post in this topic:

I have just read over the previous 5 pages of this topic, and it is full of useless bullshit. That will not be tolerated from this point forward. If you plan on responding to a post made prior to this one, your post had better conform to the rules of SD.

I have every intention of helping Moose promote a higher standard on SEN, and higher standard as it applies to SD in my interpretation means more coherent, unbiased presentation of arguments, less skewed rhetoric, deletion of flaming and ad hominem, and tolerance of ideas. In regards to the tolerance of ideas, I am sure many of you would prefer that we not allow novice viewpoints in SD, but I see them as a useful and natural part of any serious discussion, insofar as they allow us to connect the "high winded" talk down to the roots of the problem, and oftentimes shed light on the issue that we may have overlooked. However, novice viewpoints must still be presented in a manner acceptable to the standards of SD. The same goes for extremist viewpoints. If they are presented correctly, they will be allowed, despite any qualms you may have with them. I call this fair warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGOmlZGqfbg&feature=related

Alex Jones is a radio host who does great shows on politics and usually does a good job of bringing underground news to light. The link above is to show he did recently. He called it his most important show ever.

The topic he discusses in this episode is Eugenics. Eugenics is defined by wikipedia as "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)." His show focuses on the first definition.

To very briefly sum up this show, Alex Jones explains the methods of which he believes the US Government are currently using to sterilize us. If what he's saying is true, heavy metals and drugs are in our tap water to effectively reduce our fertility as a people. These pollutants are also blamed for increased cancer and disease rates. These pollutants are undoubtedly in our food as well. Also, FYI, Birth Control is the number one pollutant in the worlds fresh water supply. Obama's head science adviser is a strong advocate of mass sterilization of people in order to reduce human populations.

The show takes a while to get started, but if you have time (I'm sure if you're on SEN, you do) I recommend you give this a watch, scan it over, or at least do some of your own research on the topic. If you watch the first few parts to this series on youtube, you will surely have heard enough.

Tell me, if it's true, is it wrong? Alex Jones assumes that forced sterilization is wrong. (I tend to agree)
If it's wrong, how do we fight this? What does this mean about our perception of government?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was copy and pasted from the Thread that was closed. I suppose this one is the new one. Although, I was trying to change the discussion to Eugenics ACTUALLY occuring in the US today, not as a theory of making super humans.

http://www.staredit.net/topic/8158/
I just had to put the link here so we do not repeat ourselves... ;o

I don't think this is a debate that can be solved unless the actual details of what would happen if the global community decides to go along with this.
I'm talking about what traits would be considered sub-standard and which would qualify for acceptance, how the change is implemented, etc.

Let's assume that we want to promote genes that give people great potential for things like growth and brain development. Of course, this is very general and broad, but it can serve as a starting point. What would we get as a result of limiting the breeding of people with little potential growth and brain development?

- smarter, healthier population
- less total population, reducing our environmental impact on Earth
- a population less susceptible to general diseases
- riots, property damage, and political unrest
- a population potentially more susceptible to new diseases

I'm sure there are more positive and negative effects, but those are some basics. Let's look at all of those effects individually.

A smarter and healthier population would allow the human race to develop and progress physically, but also technologically through intellectual development. Such progress could lead to developing better technology that lessens our impact on Earth, new cures and treatments to various infections and diseases, or potentially a "Golden Age" for the human race, much like the one during the Renaissance. Overall, this is a very beneficial outcome to eugenics for the human race. I think we can all agree that an intelligent and healthy human race will likely prosper.

Less people being born because of eugenics means less total population, reducing our environmental impact on Earth. I think most people have heard that our planet is overpopulated. There are many negative effects of overpopulation: resource distribution, pollution, disease, environmental destabilization, and ultimately extinction. Eugenics would directly help us keep our planet's population down, preventing, or at least slowing all the adverse affects of overpopulation.

Eugenics, executed according to the criteria listed above, would create a population less susceptible to general diseases. When I say "general," I am talking about the common cold, the flu, etc. Healthier people will naturally be able to withstand diseases due to better immune systems. This also means less likelihood of such a disease spreading and infecting other individuals. More intelligent people might also do things such as wash their hands more often or choose to eat healthier food, further decreasing the chances of disease infection. Overall, this means general productivity goes up and economic strain on healthcare goes down.

As with all controversial subjects, such a "radical" approach to human lives ultimately leads to riots, property damage, and political unrest. This is not so much a "counter-point" to any pro-eugenics argument, but it is an effect we must consider. Is total turmoil worth the positive changes by implementing eugenics?

This, on the other hand, seems to be a major counter-point against pro-eugenics arguments: A population potentially more susceptible to new diseases. I admit that preventing the creation of "poor" or potential-less genes may extinct our race due to those genes allowing immunity or treatment, but it does not mean that it will. In fact, eugenics does not necessarily mean a genocide of people that another group of people find inadequate. What it means is generations of preventing genetically inferior people to reproduce. However, what prevents us from simply taking these genes from the given "inferior people" and storing them in the case of something like a race-wiping virus or disease? Besides that, it is unlikely that these genes specifically will be the ones that could prolong our race.

From these points, let's assume that eugenics would have a high chance of bettering the lives of most and prolonging the human race.
The question that remains is the ethical one. Should we deny some people the right to experience the joys of raising a child? Should some people never get to feel a unique connection to their offspring? These are moral questions that are up for debate, a much more difficult debate.

However, I believe the scientific debate, whether it would benefit the human race as a whole or not, is much simpler. It would benefit the human race in many different areas while only negatively affecting it short term (riots, etc) or chance-based. Granted, the meager five points I listed above are not nearly all of the possible effects, but I hope I've listed at least a few major points (at 5:51am).

_____
With that said, I'd like to address Hercanic's post on page 2 against eugenics.
This post made me question my stance on eugenics, but I still think eugenics is scientifically a good choice.
Just because we don't "know everything," doesn't mean we don't have the ability to learn more about the subject. Naturally, this depends on our timeframe. When would eugenics be implemented? Now? In 20 years? In 300 years? However, if we assume we would implement it now, then I would partially agree with you: we do not know enough to do such a potentially negative thing to our race, but I do believe we know enough to begin to practise eugenics with simpler genes. Not knowing everything should not stand in front of progress because we can decide to do things based on potential. There is great potential for eugenics to be a positive effect on our race, but I doubt there is nearly as much potential for a negative effect on our race.

_____
With THAT said, do not look at this as a "Hitler/Stalin/Crusade/Genocide" type of thing, but more as a gradual genetic improvement of the human race as a whole. It is not nearly as barbaric as some of you picture, but there is a tinge of cruelty embedded in the concept of denying the ability to reproduce, though of course besides the moral question, there is always the execution question - how would we implement eugenics?

Anyway, that's my 6 AM banter.

And this is what most concerns me. In Plato's The Republic, Socrates goes into a discussion with his peers about an ideal society as a branch-off from a dispute about justice, how it would be organized, what its practices would be, and even from this early time, eugenics was suggested. Socrates' implementation involved a lie as the fundamental basis of society: that some people were born with gold in their soul, some with silver, and some with bronze. The gold were naturally meant to be the best, watched from birth and eventually cut out to be the ruling class, or Guardians, the silver were to be the Warrior class, and the bronze was meant to be the Artisan class. It seems likely that even today, any implementation of genetics will involve a great deal of work by an entire society, and not an act of free will. I believe there are two main ways of looking at a forced implementation of eugenics: from the viewpoint of the individual and the viewpoint of the society. If the viewpoint of society is taken, eugenics becomes an attempt to improve itself, a concerted effort of its whole people to better themselves physically through a natural process. However, from the viewpoint of the individual, eugenics strips away part of his or her freedom. What if an individual were to fall in love? Society might not permit their union. Eugenics would be a form of oppression to the individual, stripping away a part of what has been humanity for a time as long as humans have been mammals.

If your 6AM banter is given this much effort every time, then it's certainly welcome regardless of the time and regardless of being banter.

Who here has read the book Brave New World? While the book is not really about eugenics, it brings up some good points. The human race does need a working class, and destroying it would not work. Not to brag, but I am pretty smart. I could not be happy (and I would not be good at) doing menial labor. If the entire world is at the highest level of intelligence we are at today, no-one would be happy doing menial labor. Another thing to bear in mind is that we will eventually reach a plateau where all people are equally intelligent. Then, there is no lower class. Everyone would be an Einstein, and it would be impossible to have any logical way of assigning jobs. There would be no-one left to work in factories,

I find it very hard to believe the government is implementing eugenics now. How would they sterilize a certain group? This is somewhat like suggesting that a SWAT team take out a criminal's apartment in the middle of NYC with an H-bomb. I also believe our government is generally honorable.

It doesn't take intelligence to dislike menial labor.
Anyone with the capability of talking, learning, and living out a normal social life of a Human, is just as intelligent as anyone else. And that is the majority of Humanity. But that all varies between beliefs.
You are trying to put down your opinion as a fact. Is this a proof? Because where I come from, diversity is inevitable.
There are automated factories for a reason.

The argument that because we need a working class we shouldn't advance human intelligence is a very bad one. If the demand for menial labor is high, the wages would be high and people would go to that job. Just like today. It's not an argument.

Additionally, it's almost certain that the US government doesn't follow the policy of eugenics. Eugenics contains as a side-effect population reduction, and in the current atmosphere, that's bad. The US is currently relatively underpopulated, and every person adds to the US's clout. With the democratic environment found within the US, it's very hard to imagine a conspiracy such as this.

As for how eugenics is implemented, I consider the most efficient method to be strict governance from a totalitarianesque government. It would get the dirty job done quickly. In general, I'm a supporter of a totalitarianesque, socialist government to regulate the economy, mankind and scientific progress while attempting to preserve nature, so this seems like the best way to me.

That as a whole, but that would never, ever happen because the majority of the WORLD, not JUST the US- is a freedom munching, self-esteem overloaded, egotistical, sentimental, 'dumb' average joe- including me. And if I say so, I, no 'we' won't allow that to happen.

Underpopulated based on the ratio of working class to underage and elderly.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 1 2009, 7:46 am by BeDazed.

I can't explain what I mean. Read Brave New World, you'll understand what I mean. If everyone is as smart as Einstein, no-one would be willing to do the work. I believe that only less intelligent people would be willing to work in a factory, no matter how well it pays. Even if a stupid person in the future might be very smart now, they still wouldn't be willing to do the work. I'm not saying we shouldn't advance the intelligence of the human race, but we should not do it artificially. I believe this will force us to evolve faster than we should. Seeing as eugenics is not being used, there is no evidence to support any of this, it's just speculation.

If we reach an intellectual level where no one is willing to do menial labor for any amount of money, we've died out as a race, because that's not intellect, that's stupidity.

More intelligent means more willing to do work, not the other way around. Less intelligent people generally tend to complain more because they don't understand a damn about what really needs to be done. Plus right now, people hate menial labor because they pay dirtshit for alot of work. But people still do menial work because otherwise they'd die without it. If anything, menial labor would just be replaced by robots (I-robot scenario)- because they don't complain, and don't require paychecks (except maybe power and maintanence).

The way I think of it, is if a government has enough power to force something like this through, they could get other things to happen as well.

Example: The government would have more control over daily life. They could create a master "schedule" or something of the like, where a fraction of the population does menial labor, while the rest of the population continues making leaps and bounds in the science, arts, & maths etc.
Every once in a while (week or two) the population would 'rotate' and another group of the population would take over the menial labor.

I agree with you that intelligent people will not take those factory jobs, but I disagree on the reason. I think if Einstein could have found a factory just with good pay and friendly co-workers. The only thing that deters me from hard labor is that I know I am not getting out what I put is, or at least not half as much as someone not doing hard labor. That's my gripe.